From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mp0 ([2001:41d0:2:4a6f::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by ms11 with LMTPS id mGC3Ov0UGF/jPQAA0tVLHw (envelope-from ) for ; Wed, 22 Jul 2020 10:29:17 +0000 Received: from aspmx1.migadu.com ([2001:41d0:2:4a6f::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by mp0 with LMTPS id 0LfsNf0UGF9EcgAA1q6Kng (envelope-from ) for ; Wed, 22 Jul 2020 10:29:17 +0000 Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by aspmx1.migadu.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6415F94051F for ; Wed, 22 Jul 2020 10:29:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost ([::1]:48744 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jyBzv-0003se-A7 for larch@yhetil.org; Wed, 22 Jul 2020 06:29:15 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:45968) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jyBzi-0003sS-MY for bug-guix@gnu.org; Wed, 22 Jul 2020 06:29:02 -0400 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:58033) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jyBzi-0008Q1-Da for bug-guix@gnu.org; Wed, 22 Jul 2020 06:29:02 -0400 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1jyBzi-0002Gp-8p for bug-guix@gnu.org; Wed, 22 Jul 2020 06:29:02 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: bug#42162: Recovering source tarballs Resent-From: Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-guix@gnu.org Resent-Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2020 10:29:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 42162 X-GNU-PR-Package: guix X-GNU-PR-Keywords: To: zimoun Received: via spool by 42162-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B42162.15954137408720 (code B ref 42162); Wed, 22 Jul 2020 10:29:02 +0000 Received: (at 42162) by debbugs.gnu.org; 22 Jul 2020 10:29:00 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:41346 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1jyBzg-0002Ga-CJ for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 22 Jul 2020 06:29:00 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:52454) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1jyBze-0002GO-R2 for 42162@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 22 Jul 2020 06:28:59 -0400 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:46258) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jyBzY-0008PU-Mh; Wed, 22 Jul 2020 06:28:52 -0400 Received: from [2a01:e0a:1d:7270:af76:b9b:ca24:c465] (port=59050 helo=ribbon) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1jyBzX-0002rz-P1; Wed, 22 Jul 2020 06:28:52 -0400 From: Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= References: <87mu4iv0gc.fsf@inria.fr> <86h7uq8fmk.fsf@gmail.com> <87d05etero.fsf@gnu.org> <87r1tit5j6.fsf_-_@gnu.org> <87365mzil1.fsf@gnu.org> <87k0ywlg1z.fsf@gnu.org> <86o8o81jic.fsf@gmail.com> X-URL: http://www.fdn.fr/~lcourtes/ X-Revolutionary-Date: 5 Thermidor an 228 de la =?UTF-8?Q?R=C3=A9volution?= X-PGP-Key-ID: 0x090B11993D9AEBB5 X-PGP-Key: http://www.fdn.fr/~lcourtes/ludovic.asc X-PGP-Fingerprint: 3CE4 6455 8A84 FDC6 9DB4 0CFB 090B 1199 3D9A EBB5 X-OS: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2020 12:28:50 +0200 In-Reply-To: <86o8o81jic.fsf@gmail.com> (zimoun's message of "Wed, 22 Jul 2020 02:27:39 +0200") Message-ID: <875zafkfml.fsf@gnu.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list X-Spam-Score: -3.3 (---) X-BeenThere: bug-guix@gnu.org List-Id: Bug reports for GNU Guix List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: 42162@debbugs.gnu.org, Maurice =?UTF-8?Q?Br=C3=A9mond?= Errors-To: bug-guix-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org Sender: "bug-Guix" X-Scanner: scn0 Authentication-Results: aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=none; dmarc=none; spf=pass (aspmx1.migadu.com: domain of bug-guix-bounces@gnu.org designates 209.51.188.17 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=bug-guix-bounces@gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -1.01 X-TUID: SH2Gmrd+NnjM Hello! zimoun skribis: > On Tue, 21 Jul 2020 at 23:22, Ludovic Court=C3=A8s wrote: > >>>> >> =E2=80=A2 If we no longer deal with tarballs but upstreams keep s= igning >>>> >> tarballs (not raw directory hashes), how can we authenticate our >>>> >> code after the fact? >>>> > >>>> > Does Guix automatically authenticate code using signed tarballs? >>>> >>>> Not automatically; packagers are supposed to authenticate code when th= ey >>>> add a package (=E2=80=98guix refresh -u=E2=80=99 does that automatical= ly). >>> >>> So I miss the point of having this authentication information in the >>> future where upstream has disappeared. >> >> What I meant above, is that often, what we have is things like detached >> signatures of raw tarballs, or documents referring to a tarball hash: >> >> https://sympa.inria.fr/sympa/arc/swh-devel/2016-07/msg00009.html > > I still miss why it matters to store detached signature of raw tarballs. I=E2=80=99m not saying we (Guix) should store signatures; I=E2=80=99m just = saying that developers typically sign raw tarballs. It=E2=80=99s a general statement to explain why storing or being able to reconstruct tarballs matters. Thanks, Ludo=E2=80=99.